True Self-No Self

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

isn't this common sense to begin with?

Well in my experience, no.

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

This would only be true to the extent that when we died, there was no soul.

Maybe that is the case.

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

There is only self while we live and breathe. How else could it be?

A different perspective than this one?

s.

[Iacchus]

Joseph Campbell says, "Follow your bliss." Swedenborg calls it our "ruling love," which guides us and perfects us throughout eternity.

[Ciel]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Joseph Campbell says, "Follow your bliss." Swedenborg calls it our "ruling love," which guides us and perfects us throughout eternity.

Hi, Iaccus fellow traveller.

- c -

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by earl

Hi Iacchus. No, we're not figments of our imagination but who we think we are probably is. earl

We are the compilation of what we experience. And, to the extent that we "live and learn," then perhaps we discover what it means to be less "selfish." That doesn't mean we don't have a sense of self though, otherwise there would be no point to the whole idea.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Ciel

Hi, Iaccus fellow traveller.

- c -

He he.

[Ciel]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

We are the compilation of what we experience. And, to the extent that we "live and learn," then perhaps we discover what it means to be less "selfish." That doesn't mean we don't have a sense of self though, otherwise there would be no point to the whole idea.

The inner or the outer experience? The layers of the onion.......
Bliss inner or outer? Where is the core of love?

- c -

[Iacchus]

We all have our 'inner-being." This is what guides us and motivates us, whether we realize it or not. To some, this takes on an outwardly or worldly appearance, with the focus on one's own personal gain, although they may attempt to disguise it -- through deceit -- because this is what they cherish most.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

We are the compilation of what we experience. And, to the extent that we "live and learn," then perhaps we discover what it means to be less "selfish." That doesn't mean we don't have a sense of self though, otherwise there would be no point to the whole idea.

What would it mean to move from less "self"-ish to no "self"-ish? earl

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by wil

So if we can contemplate observing the observer we are not that either?

sorry Wil, I dont get that

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by earl

Earl


Tao, as to "navel gazing," if something seems pretty "hard-wired" into humanity, it must serve an evolutionary imperative. Certainly, the impulse to wonder/explore seems such, whether it is to explore continents, galaxies, or the inner landscape. If the type of "navel gazing" we do serves us to move beyond everyday ego restrictions to a more universally inclusive pan-compassionate embrace of all life and more importantly via that attitude move us to take concrete steps on behalf of the welfare of "all sentient beings" as the Buddhists like to call it, then perhaps the trend toward more contemplative living is serving a real evolutionary imperative. earl

All exploration has the possibility of revealing new resources. So the imperative is toward that goal. L Ron Hubbard, the scheming charlatan founder of Scientology, establishes in his first book, Dianetics, the progression of imperatives he chooses to call dynamics. The first is to self, the 2nd to progeny, the 3rd to community and so on. It is really basic psychology, no individual can look after his children if he/she is unfit to look after themselves first.
As for this "trend toward more contemplative living", where exactly is this? I see it taking place in the same reasonably affluent liberal westerners it has always been rooted in, but nowhere else.

Tao

[wil]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

sorry Wil, I dont get that

me neither that is why I had to jump to discover what I am physically prior to discussing the nature of self and no self.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by earl

What would it mean to move from less "self"-ish to no "self"-ish? earl

I don't think this is possible, unless you were to say there was no distinction between man and God. That isn't to say man can't become more like God, however. This I do believe is possible. In which case we begin to define ourselves in terms of "graciousness" which, is still a definable quality, by the way. Although to understand this, would be to give credit to God and not ourselves.

[earl]

[quote=Tao_Equus;145373]All exploration has the possibility of revealing new resources. So the imperative is toward that goal. L Ron Hubbard, the scheming charlatan founder of Scientology, establishes in his first book, Dianetics, the progression of imperatives he chooses to call dynamics. The first is to self, the 2nd to progeny, the 3rd to community and so on. It is really basic psychology, no individual can look after his children if he/she is unfit to look after themselves first.
As for this "trend toward more contemplative living", where exactly is this? I see it taking place in the same reasonably affluent liberal westerners it has always been rooted in, but nowhere else.

Tao[/quot

Contemplative living I would not lump with Scientology. No doubt those who are not scrabbling to make a hard-fought living perhaps tend to be more likely to embrace meditative paths, but then Asia is just chock full of folks that don't let poverty stand in the way of that or, heck, even have renounced material concerns to pursue just that. earl